Talk:Nun jauchzt dem Herren, alle Welt

What a summary is not.

The entirety of some piece of text. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

But what if it can't be shortened? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I tried anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

:) 98.4.124.117 (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding "All people that on Earth do dwell"

Merged from user talk pages

As I said, I don't think that having the text of another hymn, which is not a translation of the German (unlike, say, for Ein feste Burg and it's direct English translations) and is sung to a different melody, is relevant. There are surely quite a few hymns based on Psalm 100 but I don't think listing the other variants in each article about such a hymn is relevant. As I said, the best place to put this would be at the article on Psalm 100, if it is not already there. Sorry for the revert, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I just "replied" your talk, giving you a job ;) - Should we merge this on the article talk, or is it just between us? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I searched for a translation of "Nun jauchzt", and hymnary gave my "All people". I realised then that it was earlier, but still think its juxtaposition to the German would help readers understand where Denicke departed from the plain psalm rendering. Also: we don't have the complete text of "All people" anywhere. Will you write an article about it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

As for the suggestion to place "All people" on Psalm 100: that has too many translations already, we don't need several metric versions there on top. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Maybe you should have answered on your talk page to avoid having the conversation over multiple pages Well, both texts are based on the same Psalm so it is unsurprising that they have similar features. It remains that hymns are usually considered as a grouping of text + music and "All people" is not usually sung to the tune of Nun jauchzt (read between the lines: I have only ever heard it sung to one tune and you know which one)... Regarding what I suggested on Psalm 100: no, not placing it there; the Psalm_100#Musical_settings section has no text and we could mention there that there are multiple hymns based on the text (without giving the full text there, naturally). I see the same article already gives the full text by Kethe: Psalm_100#Kethe. I'll see what I can do on making an article for "All people"; the only resources I have access to (currently) is what can be found on the internet (i.e. mostly this; hymnary; and the digitised version of John Julian's A Dictionary of Hymnology) and partial access to this wonderful website. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Go ahead creating that article, - and any help finding a real translation of this hymn is welcome, - I was misled. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Possibly missing something, but "All people" would fit better under Old 100th. Jmar67 (talk) 10:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jmar67: "All people" has enough notability of it's own (independent of the well known tune) to warrant a dedicated article. Same thing as, for example, Alleluia! Sing to Jesus (which is currently only a redirect since I haven't taken the time to write the article... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Kethe

Do not understand why you feel the need to use "by" in the infobox. I have deleted that frequently in other articles. The name is sufficient. Jmar67 (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jmar67: This is how it is described in the template documentation, see Template:Infobox musical composition. Since this would be a large change and probably would be worthy of a bot task if there's consensus to remove it I suggest your bring it up at the template talk and possible leave a notice at the Wikiproject page so more people are aware of the matter. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The parameter is to give "text" not "text author". Very often, the text has a name, such as a Requiem, some poem or hymn, a Bible pasage. In the cases when it has not a name, such as all hymns we add "by", or it would mean a text named Denicke. Perhaps frequently restore? It's a result from merging template:infobox hymn into this, for historic background. That template had a parameter "text author" (or hymnwriter, or however it was called, - and there was strong resistence to the merge). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree that the simple name is ambiguous. Maybe there could be two parameters: "Text source" and "Text author". My irritation stems from the belief that all entries in the second column should be capitalized. While I often see such errors, I do not always want to take the time to fix them. Editing on an iPhone is cumbersome enough. Jmar67 (talk) 10:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Please take all this to the template talk. There are many things I never capitalise, such as a number of movements (four), or why should the first instrument in a list of several be capital when the following ones are not? We do have a parameter librettist but it doesn't fit hymns. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

It is a basic style principle in English that text in a table entry begins with a capital letter. That is not the case in German. I had to get used to that. Also, you should use a numeral instead of "four" in this case. I have made that change on occasion. Jmar67 (talk) 10:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

How do I justify 4 vs. four, being asked to spell out numbers one to twelve. We probably have an exception from an exception? An infobox is not a table, to my understanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: It's just a matter of consistency and convention: numbers 1-10 are spellt out, above they're usually not. The reminder of this discussion should take place at template talk. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we need to move this to template talk, nor an official close, when it is about numbers, nothing specific to that template. You and I said spell out "four", but Jmar67 corrected to "4", and I'd like to know why when. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: i.e. the discussion about "by" and that should go to template talk. Sorry, I was unclear and didn't get the point. In text: spellt out; In tables: depends; often they're not (for eg. BWV 1). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

In BWV 1, it's a number because it was corrected in the infobox - possibly by J - and I'd like to understand why, certainly not for space reasons (which would be a good reason in a true table, such as the movement numbers in the table of movements, while Brian pointed out to me that movement numbers should also be spellt out in prose. Btw, one ping per thread is enough for me, I'm usually watching, and pings interrupt my other threads of thought, and I often forget where I was, getting older and feeling it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Common hymnal

As in other hymn articles, common for the two hymnals EG and GL means that they are not just any hymnals in German, but the hymnals common (copies supplied in churches) for German-speaking countries Germany / Austria / Switzerland and more, in all dioceses or church districts, - creating more notability than any simple hymnal would. Any better short word for that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I try to avoid "current", hardest ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

"present-day" is worse. We should not say anything that - unless we maintain it - will be wrong in ten years. Nothing needed in the lead, and the body has the years. - I wonder if we should have Lutheran somewhere, because that's how it started. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I knew what you meant, but that would not be clear to most readers. I would understand "common" here as "gängig" rather than "gemeinsam" or "einheitlich". "German-language" was a suggestion (maybe "official German-language"). I have made that change in other articles, knowing that it applied to AT and CH as well. Jmar67 (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Any other word? ... because "official" sound too official. They are just the hymnals in practical use, primary topics when saying German hymnals. The Gotteslob is a rather recent thing (1975), and those who are so proud they finally achieved a hymnal "gemeinsam" for all German-speaking Catholics are still alive. - ... while I understand that there are tons of hymnals in English, just by the many denominations. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I have changed it to "the modern", since that implies that they are the primary topic and keeps the information that they're current without using the forbidden word... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

That sounds fine. In German, it would not work, though, - modern has a different meaning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Warscheinlich, aber dies ist die Englische Wikipedia, so das ist keine Probleme für uns. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nun jauchzt dem Herren, alle Welt/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aza24 (talk · contribs) 07:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Happy to review this article – expect comments in the next 24 hours or so. Aza24 (talk) 07:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Prose

Adressed

Given that he was a private teacher, seemingly not to many people, maybe "tutor" is more to the point than "educator" taken with thanks - these little differences in meaning are still hard for me --GA "of two sons of George, Duke of Brunswick-Calenberg, and as..." -> of George, Duke of Brunswick-Calenberg's two sons, and as..." to avoid the double "of"? rather not, because the Duke's title is so long. --GA Alternatively "educator/tutor for the two sons of George, Duke of Brunswick-Calenberg..." may sound better and remove the double "of" I tried a third, please check, - still has two "of" because I don't know if the duke had perhaps more than two sons --GA I changed to a 4th variation that I believe may work better? Aza24 (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC) That version crossed my mind, only I rejected it because if he had four sons, then could we says so? I may check though ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC) The wording is tricky there. I think what you changed it to with "eldest sons" works the best. Aza24 (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC) tried, please check, and feel free to reword --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC) "In 1640, he settled in Hannover, where he worked for the court, again for George, who had moved his residence and built the Leineschloss there" this line is rather odd since: The four commas make it rather choppy The "moved his residence and built the Leineschloss there" makes it sound like he moved into a new house and built the Leineschloss, but I'm assuming the Leineschloss was his new house? (I could be wrong here) Maybe something like "In 1640 he settled in Hannover, where he continued working for George, (<- this comma may not even be necessary) who had moved his residence and built the Leineschloss there. (or the last part is rephrased depending on the truth of whether the Leineschloss was his new residence) (the "working in the court" part is unnecessary since it's explained in the next sentence) thank you for the offer, gladly taken - "residence" is meant firstly as the place/town from where he ruled, only secondly as the actual house (which wasn't ready when he arrived) --GA A definition in parenthesis for "Konsistorialrat" as well perhaps? would have to check de:Konsistorialrat further, a dab with three meanings, all pointing to church administration --GA Same for "Konsistorialrat", looks like it means "court chaplain", you could cite this I'm afraid that's too simple, - I rather see a position in a council (consistory), than a lone preacher, which was actually the position of the other guy --GA Shoot I'm not sure why I left a comment about this word twice, but a definition would be nice, whatever you think works best. Aza24 (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC) If only I knew, - will check in bios. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC) Again with the commas! :) perhaps "to publish a hymnal in 1646, mostly for private use." Normally the existing way would be fine, but imo the a positive right before (", a Hofprediger,") makes it rather choppy I tried to get the year sooner, which avoids a comma --GA Ah I see, looks like there's a typo in the current sentence, not sure what you meant to say. ("publish a hymnal ^1646 which was") yes, fixed, I hope --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC) What is the "Hannoversches Gesangbuch"? well, I tried to avoid to say hymnal twice (especially as Gesangbuch means hymnal, which would be a third time). We have the early one for private use vs. the later one for public use, - better suggestions welcome, as always --GA Hmm. I see what you're trying to say – it's probably fine then Is the "in with" a typo? yes, good catch --GA Not sure what "gladness in joyful sound" means, but that may be something biblical I'm not familiar with? yes, the psalm is biblical, and the source of it all, and quoted fully below, - should verse 1 be referenced here already? --GA "to the poetry rules by Martin Opitz" – sounds almost "nonnegotiable" when I'm assuming Opitz had written some standards to be follow. I think a minor rephrasing could clarify this... like "to the poetry standards of Martin Opitz" or maybe simply "to the poetry rules of Martin Opitz" would do the trick standards taken, - however the German word Regeln seemed closer to rules --GA "in the modern German-language hymnals for both Protestants, in the Evangelisches Gesangbuch of 1993 as EG 288, and Catholics, in the Gotteslob of 2013 as GL 144." may work better as "in the modern German-language hymnals for both Protestants and Catholics, in the Evangelisches Gesangbuch of 1993 as EG 288 and the Gotteslob of 2013 as GL 144 respectively." taken --GA Does the source give any info about what's different about the Catholic version's doxology stanza? well, not exactly, it's what I see when I compare the two versions, - we could go into detail of comparison, but I'd think it's undue weight (at this point, - perhaps when going for FAC) because it's only the doxology, so not even the psalm content This may just be me but having a whole section translation section for one sentence is a little odd. Maybe it would be better placed at the end of the "Psalm 100, the hymn and publication" section, since that section ends around the time period of the supposed "English translation" well, I see your point, however, I'd like to tell those who will not read further details that there's something in English, - admitting that I was surprised how little. In German, it's really one of the most popular hymns, while the English seem to prefer the translations of the shorter version on which it is based. --GA "with the final stanza being a metric paraphrase of the Gloria Patri" is this statement in reference to the Gotteslob or King James version? I am confused. The first stanzas paraphrase the psalm, the last one the Gloria Patri, in both versions (Protestant and Catholic) even if slightly different wording. The psalm is given in the KJV (which is on Wikisource), the standard English doxology is from the Book of Common Prayer. Indeed, I read this one wrong. Maybe "the psalms were interpreted as related to Christ. His version, in iambic metre, has been" would work better as "the psalms were interpreted in iambic metre as related to Christ. His version has been..." not sure. To relate the Old-Testament psalms to Christ is one thing, and the rhythm of the poetry another. Should we make three short sentences? - tried somewhat --GA Hannoversches Gesangbuch should be italicized the second mention as well and perhaps specify which edition these editors did since I'm assuming there were multiple editions and hence multiple editors? italic done, and we talk about the first edition, by these two editors. Whatever happened later seems not to relate to this song. --GA Would do "standards of" or "rules of" again... maybe this "rules by" stuff is just me but it really makes it sound like Martin Opitz passed some law dictating certain rules explained before, may be just me --GA "a thought added to" – what does this mean? Would just stick to ""säumet nicht" (do not postpone) is added to the psalm text, giving..." well, not quite, - trying harder: the idea of "do it fast, eagerly, don't wait" is NOT in the psalm text, but introduced by the song author, - better wording? --GA Perhaps, what about "a thought is added to the psalm text: "säumet nicht..."" – you may be able to come up with better wording then me "is from the 14th century, appearing first in a Moosburg Cantionale" -> "first appeared in the 14th century Moosburg Cantionale" perhaps? yes --GA I'm assuming "Key not" was meant to be "Key note" but what does this mean? Are you meaning to say that the melody is beginning on the tonic? If so I would recommend that terminology. yes --GA Lol what do you mean by, "compared to a gate"? Like the structure of the melody? It wasn't me who compared that the outline of the melody is how you would draw a gate (or a rainbow), beginning and ending low, and in the middle highest point, which makes a lot of sense because "gate" is one of the images in the psalm. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC) I see, that makes sense. I don't think it would have without some brief rephrasing, perhaps make it clearer that the gate is referring to the structure. Something like "...and its melodic structure has been compared to that of a gate" – once again your alternative may be better. Aza24 (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC) tried --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC) I love the new image! Aza24 (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Other things

Adressed

Petzold ill link and Schmid yes --GA Would link Martin Luther and perhaps Christ in "as related to Christ"? yes --GA Sure the disambiguation link would work better simply going to Iamb (poetry)? no, lol --GA Ref 1 missing the "in german" no more --GA Ref 3 could use a "|format=PDF" why? --GA Ref 1 missing ISBN no more --GA Ext link 2 missing the "in german" no more --GA Could the image from the hymn site be used in the infobox? Unsure exactly what it is of Aza24 (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC) not sure one of those would add much because it's German text only, - unless we want to clarify that in old hymnals, there was just the name of a tune, no music, - nothing specific though for this hymn --GA Putting this article on hold for a week for these comments to be addressed. If you need extra time let me know – these suggestion/comments are really on all minor things so the article is looking good. Aza24 (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC) Thank you for a thorough review! I feel like responding right away, but have two urgent DYK noms waiting (just had to take care of a proposed deletion instead, unplanned), and first now comes RL for most of the day, so will see when I'll get to it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC) I finally got to replies, and found the experience very pleasant already, - thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC) @Gerda Arendt: Shoot, I meant to go through all of these but lost track of time. It's pretty late here so I'll have to get back to looking at your responses/the current state of the article tomorrow – from what I've seen it's already looking better! Aza24 (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC) That's fine, take your time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Lovely work here Gerda, passing now – congrats! Aza24 (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)